PEFA JEFFERSON: PROJECT KICK-OFFarchive.knoxmpc.org/pefa/jefferson/10sep_pres.pdf · September 10, 2009 PEFA JEFFERSON: PROJECT KICK-OFF. September 10, 2009 The PEFA Approach. September
Post on 25-Jun-2020
3 Views
Preview:
Transcript
September 10, 2009
PEFA JEFFERSON: PROJECT KICK-OFF
September 10, 2009
The PEFA Approach
September 10, 2009
What is PEFA Jefferson?
• District-wide assessment of the enrollment and capacity situation
• Modeling to understand how those conditions change in the future
• Develop and facilitate system to test capital plan alternatives for effectiveness and cost
• PEFA is a partnership
September 10, 2009
What is unique about the PEFA Process?
• Data-driven and fact-based• Open and transparent process:
– Resource Committee– Project website:
www.knoxmpc.org/pefa/jefferson
• Provides communities with data needed to reach a consensus on course of action
September 10, 2009
What are the PEFA process goals?
• Provide objective data and analysis to enable substantive discussions on alternatives that will help Jefferson County meet its goals
• Avoid debate over data by employing best practice methodologies
• Help Jefferson County develop consensus
September 10, 2009
What PEFA Jefferson is not
• PEFA Team is not intended to be a substitute for local knowledge
• PEFA Team can not counsel relationships between agencies and elected bodies
• PEFA Team will not be lobbying for an outcome or providing a set of recommendations
September 10, 2009
Components of the PEFA Process
September 10, 2009
PHASE 1
• Enrollment projections• Capacity analysis• Comparison of enrollment (current and
future) to existing facility capacity
September 10, 2009
ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS
• Demographic and development trends analysis:– Recent enrollment trends– Analysis of population change components– Analysis of local development patterns
September 10, 2009
ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS
• Data inputs:– 5-years of student address data– Attendance zones and school locations– Subdivisions and other planned residential
developments (tracts)
September 10, 2009
ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS
• Projection factors:– Births– Student mobility– Student yield
September 10, 2009
ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS
• Projection outputs:– 7-year projection (recommended):
• Through 2016-17 school year– 10-year projections are possible:
• Through 2019-20 school year– Multiple scenarios:
• Historic trends• Accelerated development (Norfolk Southern)• Return to pre-recession growth rates
September 10, 2009
ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Loudon County High School Attendance Patterns
September 10, 2009
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
• Capacity calculations for all school facilities: functional, design, and floor area capacities
• Core space analysis
September 10, 2009
COMPARISON OF ENROLLMENT TO CAPACITY
• Compare current and future enrollments to existing facility capacity for each school
• Summary report on existing and future conditions, identifying schools operating at, above, below capacity
• Report serves as decision-making toolkit for capital improvement planning
September 10, 2009
PHASE 2
• Capital plan testing
September 10, 2009
CAPITAL PLAN TESTING
• Evaluate impacts of new schools, school consolidation, school closings, and/or attendance area redistricting in several scenarios to inform capital improvement planning decisions
September 10, 2009
CAPITAL PLAN TESTING: EXAMPLE
• Hypothetical situation showing a new middle school addition in Knox County to alleviate overcrowding at two existing middle schools
September 10, 2009
CAPITAL PLAN TESTING: EXAMPLE
Existing Knox County Middle School Districts
September 10, 2009
CAPITAL PLAN TESTING: EXAMPLE
Farragut and West Valley Middle School Districts
September 10, 2009
CAPITAL PLAN TESTING: EXAMPLE
• Options to reduce overcrowding at West Valley Middle School:– Reconfigure attendance zones– Reconfigure grade assignments– Close existing facility– Expand existing facility– Add a new school
September 10, 2009
CAPITAL PLAN TESTING: EXAMPLE
Proposed Lakeside Middle School Attendance Zone
September 10, 2009
CAPITAL PLAN TESTING: EXAMPLE
Proposed Lakeside Middle School Attendance Zone
September 10, 2009
CAPITAL PLAN TESTING: EXAMPLE
• Capital plan considerations for the new Lakeside Middle School:– Classroom and core space design capacity– Cost estimates to determine if capital plan is
fiscally constrained– Compare alternatives to examine
effectiveness
September 10, 2009
CAPITAL PLAN CONSIDERATIONS
• Capital plan testing scope is limited to issues addressing core and classroom capacity
• Other considerations related to facility assessments are not included:– Mechanical– Electrical– Structural– Architectural – Environmental– Site
September 10, 2009
PROJECT TIMELINE
• September: Project kick-off and Resource Committee formation
• September-December: Enrollment projections and capacity analysis
• Early December: Phase 1 completed• Mid December: Capital plan testing
(Phase 2)• Early February: Final presentation
September 10, 2009
Elements of Project Success
September 10, 2009
ELEMENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL PEFA PROJECT
• Called on to assist when a district is struggling with implementation of capital (building) program
• Typically there has been some level of disagreement between all or some of the following:– School board– County commission– County mayor’s office – Parents
September 10, 2009
• Support of JCS administration is essential:
– PEFA Team will fail without staff support– PEFA provides data and tools to support
decision making; not a substitute for local knowledge
– We want to facilitate a consensus, not push for any particular outcome
ELEMENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL PEFA PROJECT
September 10, 2009
• Maintain 100% transparency and constant communication:
– Resource Committee should report back to their bodies, agencies regularly
– Prepare for upcoming steps in the study– Share preliminary findings– Refer people to the project website:
www.knoxmpc.org/pefa/jefferson
ELEMENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL PEFA PROJECT
September 10, 2009
• Commit to the process:– Lack of process seems to frequently be at
the forefront of stalled building programs– Objective supporting data, rigorous process,
and good evaluation criteria lend credence to final recommendations sent to County Commission
ELEMENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL PEFA PROJECT
September 10, 2009
ELEMENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL PEFA PROJECT
• Positive planning outcomes should be free from political influence
• Political interference in an objective planning process can damage relations
September 10, 2009
Jefferson County Demographic Trends
September 10, 2009
POPULATION ESTIMATES, 2000 TO 2008JEFFERSON COUNTY AND SURROUNDING AREA
Area 2000 2008
Total Change 2000-08
Total Change (%)
2000-08
Average Annual
Change
Average Annual
Change (%)Jefferson County 44,582 51,074 6,492 14.6 812 1.8Anderson County 71,232 74,169 2,937 4.1 367 0.5Blount County 106,217 121,511 15,294 14.4 1,912 1.8Cocke County 33,627 35,688 2,061 6.1 258 0.8Grainger County 20,737 22,708 1,971 9.5 246 1.2Greene County 63,037 66,157 3,120 4.9 390 0.6Hamblen County 58,243 62,132 3,889 6.7 486 0.8Knox County 383,028 430,019 46,991 12.3 5,874 1.5Sevier County 71,699 84,835 13,136 18.3 1,642 2.3Union County 17,859 19,008 1,149 6.4 144 0.8Tennessee 5,703,094 6,214,888 511,794 9.0 63,974 1.1
September 10, 2009
SUB-COUNTY POPULATION ESTIMATES, 2000 TO 2008JEFFERSON COUNTY
Area 2000 2008
Total Change 2000-08
Total Change (%)
2000-08
Average Annual
Change
Average Annual
Change (%)Jefferson County 44,582 51,074 6,492 14.6 812 1.8Baneberry 373 475 102 27.3 13 3.4Dandridge 2,117 2,687 570 26.9 71 3.4Jefferson City 7,878 8,156 278 3.5 35 0.4New Market 1,290 1,326 36 2.8 5 0.3White Pine 2,005 2,143 138 6.9 17 0.9Unincorporated Area 30,919 36,287 5,368 17.4 671 2.2
September 10, 2009
NATURAL INCREASE AND NET MIGRATION, 2000 TO 2008JEFFERSON COUNTY
YearNatural
IncreaseNet
Migration2000-01 90 5272001-02 90 5102002-03 37 9312003-04 75 5362004-05 39 6102005-06 126 1,0812006-07 72 1,0132007-08 91 799Annual Avg. 2000-08 78 751
September 10, 2009
JEFFERSON COUNTY COMPONENTS OF POPULATION CHANGE, 2000/01-2007/08
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Year
Per
sons
Migration Natural Increase
September 10, 2009
JEFFERSON COUNTY BIRTHS AND DEATHS, 1990-2007
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Year
Bir
ths/
Deat
hs
Births Deaths Natural Increase
September 10, 2009
4.02.11.50.32.41.01.21.8Average annual change (%)
32.117.112.12.419.27.99.214.6Total change (%), 2000-08
38.07,58212,86914,4794,8562,7275,5762,98551,0742008
36.65,73910,99312,9204,7432,2885,1662,73344,5822000
Median Age
65 Years
and Over
45-64 Years
25-44 Years
18-24 Years
14-17 Years
5-13 Years
Under 5 YearsTotalIndicator
JEFFERSON COUNTY AGE GROUP POPULATION
September 10, 2009
JEFFERSON COUNTY POPULATION GROWTH, 1980-2030 (WOODS AND POOLE MODEL)
010,000
20,00030,00040,000
50,00060,000
70,00080,000
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Year
Popu
latio
n
Total, all ages School age (5-17 years)Working age (20-64 years) Seniors (65 years and over)
September 10, 2009
AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE, 1980-2030(PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD)JEFFERSON COUNTY AND TENNESSEE AVERAGES
YearJefferson
County Tennessee1980 2.81 2.761985 2.66 2.651990 2.55 2.561995 2.52 2.542000 2.48 2.482005 2.45 2.432010 2.42 2.392015 2.40 2.362020 2.40 2.342025 2.41 2.342030 2.43 2.34
September 10, 2009
Jefferson County Schools Enrollment Trends
September 10, 2009
JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS, 2000-2007
Grade Level/School Type 2000
Share (%) of Category
Total 2005-07
Share (%) of Category
TotalPreschool 481 556 Public school 318 66.1 270 48.6 Private school 163 33.9 286 51.4Kindergarten 563 755 Public school 528 93.8 755 100.0 Private school 35 6.2 0 0.0Elementary (grades 1-8) 4,817 4,416 Public school 4,618 95.9 4,308 97.6 Private school 199 4.1 108 2.4High (grades 9-12) 2,247 2,412 Public school 2,111 93.9 2,302 95.4 Private school 136 6.1 110 4.6Total (K-12) 7,627 7,583 Public school 7,257 95.1 7,365 97.1 Private school 370 4.9 218 2.9
September 10, 2009
SYSTEMWIDE ENROLLMENT, 1998-2008
6,0006,2006,4006,6006,8007,0007,2007,4007,6007,8008,000
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Enr
ollm
ent
September 10, 2009
JEFFERSON COUNTY ENROLLMENT CHANGE, 1998/99-2008/09Change Change Change
School 1998-2008 1998-2003 2003-2008Dandridge Elementary 12 59 -47Jefferson Elementary -57 -41 -16New Market Elementary 14 3 11Piedmont Elementary 142 93 49Talbott Elementary 37 73 -36Rush Strong School 66 40 26White Pine School 109 37 72Jefferson Middle 69 117 -48Maury Middle 132 120 12Jefferson County High 452 197 255 Total 976 698 278
September 10, 2009
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, 1998-2008
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Enro
llmen
t
Dandridge Jefferson New Market Piedmont Talbott
September 10, 2009
JEFFERSON COUNTY BIRTHS AND DEATHS, 1990-2007
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Year
Bir
ths/
Deat
hs
Births Deaths Natural Increase
September 10, 2009
K-8 SCHOOLS ENROLLMENT, 1998-2008
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Enr
ollm
ent
Rush Strong White Pine
September 10, 2009
MIDDLE SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, 1998-2008
0100200300400500600700800
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Enr
ollm
ent
Jefferson Maury
September 10, 2009
HIGH SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, 1998-2008
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Enr
ollm
ent
Jefferson County
September 10, 2009
September 10, 2009
JEFFERSON COUNTY ENROLLMENT CHANGE BY GRADE LEVEL, 1998/99-2008/09Change Change (%) Change Change (%) Change Change (%)
Grade 1998-2008 1998-2008 1998-2003 1998-2003 2003-2008 2003-2008K-5 240 7.6 226 7.1 14 0.46-8 277 19.3 266 18.5 11 0.69-12 451 24.8 201 11.1 250 12.4SE 7-9 8 12.7 5 7.9 3 4.4 Total 976 15.1 698 10.8 278 3.9
September 10, 2009
ENROLLMENT CHANGE BY GRADE LEVEL, 1998-2008
0
100
200
300
400
500
K-5 6-8 9-12
Grade Level
Enro
llmen
t Cha
nge
1998-2008 1998-2003 2003-2008
September 10, 2009
Past Enrollment Projections
September 10, 2009
COMMUNITY TECTONICS MASTER PLAN, MARCH 2004COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND PROJECTED ENROLLMENT
Indicator Actual Projected2003-04 7,181 n/a2008-09 7,459 7,944Average Annual Growth Rate 0.8 2.15-Year Growth Rate (%) 3.9 10.6Error, Projected v Actual 485Error, Projected v Actual (%) 6.5
Systemwide
September 10, 2009
COMPARISION OF ACTUAL AND COMMUNITY TECTONICS PROJECTED ENROLLMENT
5000550060006500700075008000850090009500
10000
1998 2003 2008 2013 2018
Year
Enr
ollm
ent
Actual Projected
September 10, 2009
Project Website
www.knoxmpc.org/pefa/jefferson
top related